click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20130126
20130203
Search Results 0 to 12 of about 13
of the speeches he made recently calculated that nato and the fact that the experience in afghanistan is not over yet, but hasn't been a terrifically happy one for nato and not might serve as lead to a which we just don't have the will anymore, the intention to stay on the same scale before, particularly the exception that her partners are are now pulling away. how do you think will really keep nato going? to sustain nato and keep it relevant given her budgetary restrictions? >> in intervening event poses a threat. we thought a little research and said nato the libya situation, where clearly the united states is not going to take the lead, was going to supply reconnaissance, intelligence, surveillance and a little bit of backup. either nato getting together going forward are not. the threat of you stabilize libya, consequences of that for southern europe, the history with european presence they are as a precipitating event. but i think it's going to take something similar to that, one issue that potentially could be that is the whole situation of their weapons things in the fact that europe would
like nato. nato now has 26, 27 members. is a totally different thing. those are areas i am not so sure the security council of the un wouldn't be better off doing large things or have some variations. nato is always seeing significant cracks, afghanistan is not the only test, but quite frankly half of the soviet union imploded in 1989. we asked, nato members asked each other, asked the institution if there was still a requirement for nato because the soviet tanks were no longer a threat rolling across the boulder gap in germany so it could be -- why do we need it? i think what it is about is the next president should work with our friends and allies in trying to restructure some of these institutions to make the relevant to the twenty-first century, make the relevant to these new challenges, give you another example, foreign aid. bob gates's speaking kansas state, what bob gates was talking about was not just foreign aid, wasn't just talking about aid programs, sacks of sugar. what he was talking about, this is twenty-first century thinking, investment in stability and security, invest
and interest in maintaining a certain level of insurgency to restart from u.s., nato allies. i think it's possible rationalist explanation that the coziness of a venture of having comprehensive strategy to tackle all of their hands -- militancy in those tribal areas and the rest of the country. it comes to money, manpower and material and i outweigh the costs over the last 10 years in the chapter. because of these cars since 2007 they shaped the anticipation of future costs and fears about future might hold should they go whole hog into fata in future operations. it's worth paying attention to it pakistan says the pakistan military state leaders say about the cost they weren't. we are tuned to this. it is striking when there's new reports say they have lost about two brigades of manpower from their military and the operational equivalent of two divisions, which is dramatic. this is based on estimations of the retreating costs, time, material costs. but that was pretty significant. for a military that has a hostel at eastern border, this is not a significant cost or send a talked about a
go on and on. nato expansion. all the things taken for granted but not in initiative. they're members of congress on capitol hill who change the world in a very meaningful way and that's still an opportunity if we recognize we need to care about. sorry for that little speech. >> how do we know kind of the counterterrorism, is very much her? [inaudible] >> the question is how do we know when we've won? >> were in no danger of women anytime soon. this has become a sugarless because it's a fair question obviously. what you measure for success and how do we know when we stopped, and that we are so far away from that now a more further away than when this president took office in the policies he's recommending will take us further and further from that because until we can start measuring the hectares covered by al qaeda affiliate, i guarantee you a question of whether we've won or not is nonoperative and right now the measurement is on the increase rather than decrease. so it's a fair question, but we need to recognize where we are in history. this is more like stalingrad 1943. hopefully
. before he could come in and torched and gauzy and kill all the rebels we and our nato allies intervened to stop that. no, in the case of syria we have not intervened, but certainly other outside powers have. the rebels of been able to get support, for example, from the gulf states which keeps them from being simply swept off -- swept off the board. in turn he gets support from a run. and the moment the war is more less stalemated because both sides have some degree of support, but it is not overwhelming. very unpopular, but the insurgents have not been able to push him out of the weight. but -- and this goes back to a point was making earlier about the incredible importance of legitimacy. i would say for most syrians he lacks legitimacy, especially for the senate majority of the country because he is part of a minority. however, he does have support in the community. he does have support among some of the other minorities because they're afraid of what would happen if their work to take over. he is able to cling to power with a small degree of legitimacy left. the rebels, in turn, are a
state or not, do they attack u.s./nato forces in afghanistan or not, do they take direction from mullah omar or not? and a very interesting way of capturing the topology of the different taliban groups. to brian's right is ken ballen who's one of the leading pollsters in the muslim world. he helped us with a poll, the first poll that really looked at the political, sensitive political questions in the federally-administered tribal regions. obviously, polling is pretty tricky for all sorts of obvious reasons. we had a very good partner on the ground called camp. ken helped us really think about how to make this poll a truly scientific poll. he will explain some of the findings of that poll. he'll also, he's written a book "terrorists in love," which is a almost anthropological account of jihadis and why they join certain groups, and he'll also talk a little bit about what he learned about mullah omar in the process of writing that book. to the right of ken ballen is colonel tomlin. who served on admiral mullen's staff. he has written, i think, an absolutely fascinating chapter essentiall
working at the nsc on detail and nato headquarters, the middle east and the pentagon. pentagon. he was adviser to four presidents, president obama asked them to lead his afghanistan-pakistan paula's review in early 2009, and do that for a couple of months before apple first returning to brookings. bruce has written two books in the time has been a, a third is about to come out and i will mention that in the second of the first two were about al qaeda and then about the is pakistan relationship. so the search for al qaeda, the deadly embrace, his new book coming out next month is avoiding armageddon. it's a story by the u.s.-india pakistan relationship and crisis management over the last half-century or so. general stan mcchrystal is a 1976 graduate of west point, spent 34 years in u.s. army, retiring as a four-star general the summer 2010. he has been command in afghanistan. use the correct of the joint staff but perhaps the military circles most of all as i mentioned this five year period at joint special operations command makes a memorable and historic. general casey at his reti
the world bank and nato that protected our interest and benefited people and nations around the world. yet it is undeniable that a handful of major powers did end up controlling those institutions, setting norms and shaping international affairs. now two decades after the end of the cold war, we faced a different world. more countries than ever have a voice in global debates. we see more paths to power opening up as nations gain influence to the strength of their economies rather than their militaries are going political and technological changes are empowering nonstate actors, like active this, corporations and terrorist networks. at the same time, we face challenges from financial contagion to climate change to human and wildlife trafficking that spill across borders and defy unilateral solutions. as president obama has said, the old post-war architecture is crumbling under the weight of new threats. so the geometry of global power has become more distributed and diffused as the challenges we face have become more complex and crosscutting. so the question we ask ourselves every day is, w
chiefly the u.n., the imf the world bank and nato that protected our interests, defending universal values and benefited peoples and nations around the world. yet it is undeniable that a handful of major powers did end up controlling those institutions combat setting norms and shaping international affairs. now two decades after the end of the cold war, we faced a different world. more countries than ever have a voice in global debate. we see more passed power opening up as nations gain influence through the strength of their economies rather than their military and political and technological changes are empowering nonstate actors like activists, corporations and terrorist networks. at the same time we face challenges from financial contagion to climate change to human and wildlife trafficking that defy unilateral solutions. as president obama's said, the old post-war architecture is crumbling under the weight of new threats. said the geometry of global power has become more distributed and diffused as the challenges we face have become more complex and crosscutting. so the question we as
lended to this. she's been one of the driving forces behind nato's no-fly zone over libya in order to prevent qadhafi from massacring his own people. and through deft diplomacy, she has slowly opened burma to the outside world. she's encouraging them to free political prisoners, hold parliamentary elections and finally permit foreign investment. and it's happening before our eyes. and, of course, she has taken special interest in the poorest nation in the western hemisphe hemisphere, an island nation right off of the east coast of the united states, less than an hour and a half flight time from miami. that's the island of haiti. the island nation of haiti on what is an island that christopher columbus was expected to have been the island that he landed, hispaniola now encompassing haiti and the dominican republic. and she has made haiti one of the top foreign policy projects, helping the impoverished island build back better after the devastating earthquake that killed over a quarter million people. in no small measure has her husband -- president clinton -- been a part of that att
that it was going to participate in a nato exercise to essentially dismantle the gadhafi regime in libya, i knew even as that decision was going to be taken, that there would be consequences throughout the sahel. the reason being that gadhafi provided a regime of stability in the sahel that was provided by his provision of direct economic benefits to the region, not only in terms of investment, but also in terms of direct transfers of moneys to the region. he was predictable upon his demise, not only would economic benefits be removed, but toureg soldiers in his islamic region would no longer be on the payroll, and no longer being in the payroll, they would then have to return to the countries of origin, primarily northern niger because they were no longer emerging employed. in the context of the demise, two arms depots were made available in tripoli, and heavy armorments were lewded from those depots and fell into the hands of those who would subsequently constitute and move forward with some secular resistant fighters in the north. that was the first point. the second point that we need to exa
as nato took the mission, the mission evolved into something different. but it is important to remember how it started. it is absolutely, i think, a fair question to say why did you act in libya in this circumstance under the doctrine, if you will, or the principle, if you will, of the responsibility to protect noncombat taxes -- b combat taxes, why did you choose to do that in libya and not choose -- or choose to not do that in other places? each circumstance, of course, is significantly different. and it has to be measured on its own merits. it also addresses, i think, the limits of power. military power does not solve all problems. and importantly in libya, there was aup security council resolution -- a u.n. security council resolution that called for this mission and authorized all available means. in syria there is no such security council resolution that would, that would provide the legal underpinning for an operation in syria similar to what was conducted in libya. so it's a great question, but there are significant differences, i think. i should caveat all of that by reminding
with india. i could go on and on and on. nato expansion. all of the things we now take for granted were not initiatives of the clinton administration, they were initiatives of members of congress here on capitol hill who changed the world in a very meaningful way. and that is still an opportunity if only we recognize that it's something that we need to care about. sorry for my little speech, but you have two former capitol hill staffers here, so -- >> hi -- [inaudible] general question, how do we know when we've won? like with regard to the kind of counterterrorism, "zero dark thirty" movement. is there, like, a metric? how is -- does there -- >> repeat the question. the question is how do we know when we've won? >> don't worry about it. [laughter] we're in no danger of winning anytime soon. [laughter] this is, this has become a shib list because -- it's a fair question, obviously, what's your measure for success and how do we know when we've p stopped or when we can p sop. when we can stop. but we are so far away from that now, and we're further away from that now than when this presid
Search Results 0 to 12 of about 13